Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

No, all software patents should be shot down. Patents should only be given to inventions which operate in the physical world — mechanical devices, tools, electronic equipment, and so on. Patenting software is (more or less) patenting algorithms, and therefore to patenting mathematics; on the other hand, research works much better if information is shared freely.
Also, software is already covered by copyright, so protecting it with patents also is overkill.
Also... well, there are many reasons why software patents are a terrible idea. Everybody with an interest more than casual in the subject whould get familiar with the arguments given in http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ [nosoftwarepatents.com].

A computer is a general-purpose machine. A computer's purpose is to process an organized collection of instructions to do a specific thing. These instructions are called "software". A computer without software is a doorstop. Patenting a particular collection of instructions (even if they do something really, really interesting) is, in effect, patenting the use of a thing for its intended purpose.

It would be akin to patenting "a method for dialling my phone number" and then going after royalties every time my phone rings. Or "a method for using an automobile to get to work" and suing everyone in rushhour traffic.

Under your logic, nothing at all could be patented. After all, a gear is an "instruction" for the conversion or translation of angular motion. All machines are merely sets of instructions, at some level of abstraction. Patents are designed to cover the use of things. See section 101 of the patent act.
PS: This is not to say that software patents are good/bad for other reasons.

This may be showing my hand a bit, but I don't think that would bother me. I am not an advocate for completely abolishing patents, though such folks do exist. I'm more of an agnostic on the point.

After all, a gear is an "instruction" for the conversion or translation of angular motion. All machines are merely sets of instructions, at some level of abstraction.

Oh, come off it. This is the most tortured argument - look, at some level of abstraction, I am a walrus. KooKooKachoo. At some level of detail, I am not. I suppose you have trouble distinguishing a real car from a Gran Turismo disc?

Software patents make as much sense as mechanical patents because both cover how to change something in one state to something that might be more useful in a different state. The usefulness of the patent is up for debate as it would be in any new industry, as is the innovation. The debatable questions are whether the innovation that goes into creating something that is novel in software deserves a patent, and whether allowing patents in software is good for society. Once those questions are sufficiently answered there will always be the secondary questions of a particular patent's worthiness, but it will be far easier to answer.

That's just it. I'm not. I was being snippy at this statement: All machines are merely sets of instructions, at some level of abstraction.

So, let's have it. Program your computer into a spinning wheel. No mechanical apparatus, just pound away at those keys until it starts spitting out yarn. I'll give you as long as you want. Hell, I'll sit in the mall under a neon sign that says "I am the walrus" knitting you a sweater out of that yarn if you can do it. (I fully expect I'll never have to learn to knit)

Your argument fails to take into account the purpose of patents: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Almost anything patentable in the physical space is doing something in a new way. Seeing the device is not enough to understand how it works, and the patent is designed to force the "how" to become public.

In ssoftware, with the exception of mathematical algorithms (which are excluded from patents), the "how" part is always obvious to someone skilled in the art. Tell a skilled programmer what something does, and they will be able to write a piece of software that does the same thing. There is nothing for the human race as a species to gain from forcing that knowledge to be public. Whether the "how" is "implements the foo algorithm" or "supports purchasing without a shopping card", as soon as the question is asked, the solution is always obvious.

Thus, the question is whether it should be reasonable to allow patents on something based solely on who did something first without regard to whether any first-year college grad would have done the same thing given the same set of problems. I would contend that the answer is no, that software should not be patentable because the entire process for creating software is obvious except for the very specific details of the source code.

That said, if you want software patents, I would be willing to concede their usefulness if and only if they provide substantial "how" information that could not have been guessed---in other words, if applying for a patent meant making the source code for the patented portion open source and outside the scope of copyright. Copyright or patents: choose one. Allowing software to be both copyrighted and patented is wrong. There is no reason why software should have special protection above and beyond all other technical fields.

As for one-click, no one else implemented it before because it was a fundamentally moronic idea. The last thing I want is to be able to spend money just by clicking on a link. I want some reasonable protection against accidental spending, and I want verification against somebody sitting down at my machine and buying something without me knowing it. No one did it before because the usefulness of the idea was not obvious, not because the idea or design itself wasn't obvious. There is a difference.

Discrete machine elements are the means to execute an instruction, not the instruction itself.

The gear or linkage is the element that enables execution of the instructions and should be patentable. The speed, position or displacement of the gear is the instruction and should not be patentable. To get a different output for the same input, you must alter the elements to the extent that it can no longer be considered the same device. Unique devices can qualify for a patent.

The transistor is the element that enables execution of instructions and should be patentable. The state of charge on a transistor is the instruction and should not be patentable. To get a different output for the same input, you need only change the state of charge on the transistors* - but the physical state of the machine is identical.

The important distinction is the seperation of the physical device and it's purpose from the conditions it operates under. Two devices that serve the same purpose but are physically unique should be patentable. Two devices that are physically identical but used for different purposes should be patentable.** Altering the operating conditions of the same device to get a different result is obvious and should not be patentable.

=Smidge=

* - Does not count things like a new circuit design, which would produce a unique device and thus be patentable.

The transistor is the element that enables execution of instructions and should be patentable. The state of charge on a transistor is the instruction and should not be patentable. To get a different output for the same input, you need only change the state of charge on the transistors* - but the physical state of the machine is identical.

In a more general sense, one could say that a glass is patentable (presuming that they hadn't existed for thousan

The logic used in the "hell world" program can be just as easily turned into a physical series of circuits as a Hardware design in HDL. And you don't think it's possible to create a hardware implementation of "hello world" you are fooling yourself.

No, all software patents should be shot down. Patents should only be given to inventions which operate in the physical world.

Software can operate in the physical world. That's why the USPTO started allowing software patents in 1981. Anyways, I like the europeean take on software patents, which says that "any invention which makes a non-obvious "technical contribution" or solves a "technical problem" in a non-obvious way is patentable even if a computer program is used in the invention." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#In_Eu rope [wikipedia.org]

Well, that's the beauty of Wikipedia: I read the section of the article you quoted, and in this case I don't trust the author. Here is the text of the cited Article 52 (http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e /ar52.html):

Article 52
Patentable inventions
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step.
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
(4) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body shall not be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within the meaning of paragraph 1. This provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods.

So, "programs for computers" (and algorithms, mind you) are not patentable, period. IF you use a program for computers in a LARGER system, the system as a whole is (maybe) patentable. The point is not whether you solve a "technical problem" with the program; what else could you be doing, turning the computer's fingers?...

It means if you invent a new automated welder, which relies on computer input to produce its output (but also does the actual welding), then this program in tandem with the welder would be considered a patentable device.

It basically means that just because something uses a computer program doesn't mean it's *not* patentable. It's something you have to think about for a second, but it makes sense. It lets people patent things like ATMs, printers, and electronic parking meters.

Right. It also means that you are patenting the device, not the program; so, if you patent an innovative device, which uses an innovative program, the program itself is not patented.
In theory, at least.

Technically, they didn't. Software is not, nor has it ever been, patentable as software. Software patents all come in under the ruling that allows business methods to be patented. That's why they all begin "A method for [...]" and go to such lingual gymnastics to avoid using the word "algorithm" ever.

It might seem that this point is splitting a hair, but this happens to be a very important hair.

And business methods should not be patentable either, and AFAIK they aren't patentable in europe either. You guys in the US should target the patenting of business methods and kill software patents in the process.

That, and you should find a way to stop the patenting of stupid, useless, obvious and unoriginal things. Because thats the biggest problem with patents, patenting software would be far far far less devastating if it wasn't possible to patent obvious things and if it wasn't possible to patent oth

> No, all software patents should be shot down.
> Patents should only be given to inventions which operate in the physical world
I agree, but it's too late to change the books now. There are a lot of US companies with zillions of dollars invested in their patent claims. Do you really expect the USPTO to say "Ok, we see now. All these software patents are mathematical algorithms and cannot be patented. Null and void everybody."? Besides, Microsoft has been buying them up like cheap hookers for th

Not really.Or main concern is not with software patents but with bad patents that should never be granted the first time.

One click shopping works by using cookies for their intended purpose - to maintain state during and across browsing sessions. This should never be considered original. On the USPTO's defense, we should consider how clueless everybody but a few were on the ins and outs of the web.

One click shopping should not even be considered particularly clever. They got there first because they were pr

When the rule you suggest was the case, patenting software was easily handled by patenting the combination of a device with the underlying software. See, for example, US 4,490,811, [freepatentsonline.com] which in essence patents not the software of the "proximity theta" algorithm but simply any electronic circuit running said algorithm.
My point is merely that you will find the line between a "software patent" and a "hardware patent" difficult to enforce a clear line around.

Also, software is already covered by copyright, so protecting it with patents also is overkill.

Even worse, software can (and frequently is in the US) protected by copyright, trade secret, and patents, all at the same time. In addition, vendors try to restrict your rights even further by draconian licenses. Overkill indeed.

Ooops. Here comes Microsoft with a program that looks, acts, and feels EXACTLY the same. Microsoft makes millions and millions. Your father makes... nothing. You get nothing. Your father hires a lawyer, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing Microsoft around in court, Microsoft gets away without paying a dime. That's what life would be like without software patents.

Not really, if it's that close a ripoff wouldn't it be covered by copyright? It's really just the same as rewriting a novel and chang

Ooops. Here comes Microsoft with a program that looks, acts, and feels EXACTLY the same. Microsoft makes millions and millions. Your father makes... nothing. You get nothing. Your father hires a lawyer, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing Microsoft around in court, Microsoft gets away without paying a dime.

That's what life would be like without software patents.

Microsoft pulls this shit all the time. This *is* the world we live in. Software patents make it worse, not better.

You want prior art for 1 click? What about those old-style vending machines - you only had to press the button once to get the chocolate bar or can of soda. I say old-style because the new ones need 98 keypresses and a working knowledge of XML to get anything out of them. I guess that's progress.

You want prior art for 1 click? What about those old-style vending machines - you only had to press the button once to get the chocolate bar or can of soda.

What they didn't do was remember your credit card details to charge you on and recognise you via a token that you presented back to them as identification when you wanted to complete a transaction. These are important parts of Amazon's patent that would have to be present for something to be prior art. #

Back in '95 or '96. We all thought it was so plainly obvious. In fact, the key thing that makes one-click shopping possible, the browser cookie, was put into the browser specifically for the purpose of associating a browser/session with stored data on the back end (payment/shipping details, purchase list.) The reason nobody did it is because engineers thought it was a BAD IDEA. Forcing people to enter their credit card and billing address details was a form of SECURITY. Being able to purchase things with one click was just too easy. Someone could come up to your computer and ring up a bunch of charges. Keeping payment details for thousands of customers on your computer was deemed too large a risk. It wasn't until the Marketeers at Amazon thought this was a good idea that it came about.

However, I think the fact that the cookie support was already in the browser is proof that the claims of the patent were obvious.

Is "1-click purchasing" even a software patent? I would think that it would be considered a business process patent. A "software design to implement 1-click purchasing" would be a software patent (and would be easily avoidable by developing a different software design to implement 1-click purchasing; the beauty of software is there's a million different ways to do anything).

No - your order was not shipped to a prior address. It was shipped to the address that you had defined as being your current address. Just 'cos you used the system incorrectly does not make it a bad system.

Re: "it promptly went to my computer and refused to let me also put it on the TiVo" - Not true. When you sign up for Unbox you can *only* download movies (purchase or rental) to you associated Tivo. There is *no* capability to download to your PC.

Well if what you say is true, no one should really complain if no one but Amazon can do it. After all, its a bad idea.

The point is that such a patent would give Amazon the right to sue any other merchant who is deemed by Amazon to infringe on their patent. Because "1 click" is so simple and obvious, any vendor who uses a simple and obvious method for submitting web orders would be open to harrassment by Amazon. In effect, Amazon could argue that "Vendor x has a simple and obvious method for ordering stuf

Forcing people to enter their credit card and billing address details was a form of SECURITY.

It seems you're using security as an argument against implementing 1-click. If thats the case, the argument isn't very well thought out. Even without 1-click, most sites offer to save your credit card and billing address, so it's just a matter of selecting which credit card to use without typing it in again. Furthermore, if someone comes up to your computer and rings up a bunch of stuff with 1-click, (a) the stuf

So it seems your reasons for not pioneering 1-click have more to do with saving credit/billing information on your own supposedly secure server rather than with the idea of 1-click itself. I don't see how that translates to 1-click being a BAD IDEA.

Um. Because 1 click requires one to store the credit card information in database.

1 click requires one to store the credit card information in database.

Only in as much as the credit card information must be stored in a database somewhere/anyway/. Many payment service providers (i.e., the people who keep your card on their database whatever the vendor does with it) offer a repeat billing service. They're not hard to use. I have never heard of a reputable payment service provider being hacked.

in logical terms, your argument is valid, but unsound; that is, at least one of the premises is untrue. specifically, you assert that "1-click requires said store of credit card information in said exploitable database", and your (mis-)linked example indicates that "said" database is a vendor's. that is not in any way required for 1-click to work. in common practice in online shopping sites generally, 1-click or no, the credit card number is sent one time to the CC processor, who responds with a unique key that the vendor uses in subsequent transactions. that key, not the CC number, is then stored in the database and used for subsequent transactions. the number is useless to anyone other than the initial vendor, thus eliminating the financial exposure to customers if the vendor's database is cracked.

it's tempting to point out that this practice, which is generally considered best practice in the payments inudstry, simply shifts the burden from the vendor to the processor. this is untrue; instead, it reduces the exposure. the CC processor has this anyway; we're simply reducing the burden on the vendor. if the fact that the processor stores the information bothers you, then your argument is against credit/debit cards in general, not 1-click (and it'd be a reasonable argument to make; the entire system is frighteningly fragile).

When you make a transaction through a credit processor online, the system can store a reference number that can then be used to make other transactions. Therefore, if the database is compromised, the attacker only gets these reference numbers which (a) require a VeriSign merchant account to use and (b) can be easily voided without having to void the credit card number as a whole.

The reason nobody did it is because engineers thought it was a BAD IDEA.

I think the 1-click patent is a crock for many reasons, but to play devils advocate here: this point actually undermines the obvious argument, because it suggests that people in the field thought it could not be done. When prior art teaches _away_ from doing something in a particular way, and the patent in question finds a way to "make it work" in spite of that, then the solution is likely to be deemed non-obvious. From the Teleflex rul

The reason nobody did it is because engineers thought it was a BAD IDEA.
I think the 1-click patent is a crock for many reasons, but to play devils advocate here: this point actually undermines the obvious argument, because it suggests that people in the field thought it could not be done. When prior art teaches _away_ from doing something in a particular way, and the patent in question finds a way to "make it work" in spite of that, then the solution is likely to be deemed non-obvious. From the Teleflex

"I remember hearing about the 1 click patent. Back in '95 or '96. We all thought it was so plainly obvious."

So, basically, Amazon has had 11 years of patent protection by delaying final action on the patent application? I've heard that Amazon has been vigorously defending its "property", and scaring away people who implement the same thing without realizing it is the object of litigation.

At a time of unprecedented corruption in the U.S. government, Jeff Bezos is vigorously trying to corrupt the govern

"No prior art" is being waved about as being the only significant aspect, and they are hoping no-one realizes the patent was rejected due to being obvious (or, not non-obvious).

As prior art is the usual counter-argument to patents, since it can be clearly proven to someone without expertise in the field, it seems unusual that one has actually been rejected due to being obvious. And since people are so used to hearing about prior art being the significant factor, it may sway a few people.

True in the past, but the tides have started to turn as of the Teleflex ruling. Obviousness has for a long time been very difficult to show because the courts had used a too rigid definition. However, SCOTUS has said that merely using components in a way that their combination yields only the expected result could be sufficient, and has also encouraged the use of "common sense" in determining obviousness, as opposed to the very narrow test. I hope to see a lot more BS patents like this invalidated in the coming years.

If something is SO obvious that any moron can come up with it, it deserves no patent.

Actually it is even broader than that. A patent is considered obvious if not merely a moron, but even someone having ordinary skill in the relevant field, could have been expected to come up with the same solution.

Patents exist so investition in research and development can be reimbused.

Not quite. They exist to encourage invention, by securing the inventors exclusive right to produce his inventions. If the inventor happens to have some sunk costs then he might be better able to recover them by having a patent, but that is incidental.

If you have no expense for research and development, you deserve no patent.

Actually the idea is (or at least should be) that patent should be awarded to those ideas that will require some amount of research to re-search it. If an idea is so obvious that you (being an expert in the field) don't need to spend a few months searching for it then there is no case for patenting it.Obviously a person hitting on an idea just by a stroke of genius is still covered because another expert in the same field without the stroke of genius would still need to spend a few months of effort to find

One click is an interesting case. It is certainly the kind of thing someody would consider in streamlining the checkout process.The thing that makes it interesting is that it has dubious utility.

The one click patent is not quite as dreadful as the "do X which has been done forever but over a wireless network" patents, but it shares features with them. It's really the Internet which gave this trivial idea any life at all.

It is class of problem one click represents that is the problem: business patents. One

Then you still have to flesh it out into an actual invention - the devil, as usual, will be in the details. An overall idea of how to accomplish something is good, but it's not enough for an invention, and certainly isn't/shouldn't be enough for a patent.

Use medicine, for example. If you're a biochemist working for a large drug company, maybe you'll think "hey, why don't we use substance X to achieve effect Y, which would cure disease Z" some day, bu

Patents exist so investition in research and development can be reimbusedno they exist (at least under the american system) primerally to discourage trade secrets. You give your invention to the public in exchange for getting a time limited (and unlike copyrights patent time limits havn't exactly spiraled out of control) monopoly on the invention. Whether your idea is the result of years of R&D or a stroke of genius isn't really relavent.

sadly the system has been abused in a number of ways1: obviousness: many patents give soloutions that would be obvious when presented with the problem. This means that next time someone runs into that problem they either have to pay the patent holder a license fee (if the patent holder will even accept one), take the legal risk of ignoring the patent or try and find a less obvious (and possiblly less efficiant) soloution to the same problem.2: prior art: again the system has been very poor at recognising prior art leading to people getting and keeping patents for things that are already public.3: areas patentable: a number of new areas (software, buisness methods) were made patentable by court descisions bypassing the normal procedures of governement. Now other countries are being pressured into making those things patentable as well. The lack of patented prior art (which is all the PTO seems to care about) means theese areas suffer from 1 and 2 far more than other areas.

It's easy in hindsight to say "that's so obvious". At the time it was *not* obvious (ah, how swiftly we forget...) Use the wayback machine to look at other eCommerce sites from the same timeframe when Amazon implemented one-click. To say they are a joke is being unkind to jokes....
Did you know that someone has the copyright on the song "Happy Birthday" - but...but...but it's so *obvious* - yeah, well someone wrote it. So pay up your royalies.

Nothing Mentioned here is out of the ordinary. All applications are rejected at least once...if it is not rejected your council has done something terribly wrong and drawn narrow-scope claims that will not yield any protection or competitive advantage. Cancellation and continuation are standard strategy as well. It would be more interesting to find that they were given a divisional; implying validity.

I thought the one-click patent was brought to its knees by the/. community riding on the back of an old ski-lift ticket system as prior art.

Mostly correct and I am glad someone said it, but... minor pointIt would be more interesting to find that they were given a divisional; implying validity.Actually a divisional (aka a restriction requirement) says absolutely nothing about validity. What it says is you have a lot of claims in your application and the Examiner isn't going to be bothered to look at all of them. Split the application into multiple applications (so the Examiner gets more points, and the PTO more money) and then they'll look at the claims.

Yes, pretty much everything gets a 103 (obvious) rejection. Sometimes this only means your Examiner put all your key words into a search engine and cited 5 unrelated pieces of prior art against you (i.e. the lazy Examiner). Sometimes, the 103 is well done. Merely telling me you have a 103 rejection tells me little.

A continuation isn't a stalling tactic. It is a way to get better claims with the same filing date as the original, but after getting a look at the cited prior art. Perfectly normal. In fact, you often use a continuation with a "bird in the hand" strategy. You take the claims the Examiner allows in the parent application (which then issue as a patent), and then continue to argue the unallowed claims in the continuation. There is no stalling. Actually, a continuation is quicker than an appeal.

I am glad to see an Examiner taking Official Notice. They do it rarely and even more rarely do it correctly. There is a correct way to take Official Notice and so few Examiner's follow it.

Also the Oral Hearing in the Appeal is unusual, but something they are allowed by right. What is usual is waiving that right and just not showing up. But if Amazon has DC based attorneys, the PTO is just down the road.

I have to admit to feeling just a bit creeped out by how much thought obviously goes into gaming the Patent system just based on the previous two postings. Yes, I understand why getting rejected for obviousness is expected - you want to make claims as broad as possible and only narrow them when forced to do so. However by doing so it's also obvious why the Patent Office is so overworked and buried in applications - submitters are gaming the system by forcing multiple examinations ni order to get the broades

This is Slashdot, where you can be praised to the stars one week and subject to "Two Minute Hate" the next. As far as contributions go, the conventional "wisdom" is that they always corrupt, no exceptions. Therefore, we should only elect people who have enough money to afford the election. Wait, no, we should never allow people to contribute to campaigns. No, wait, wait, we should only allow campaign contributions from the "right" people. Hm, well, we should all be taxed to pay for anyone and everyone

Hahaha... That is just win. I'm sure there are plenty more games than that one that demonstrate 'prior art' as well.

I mean really, can someone tell me when we've been able to patent stupid things like using mouse clicks and moving a mouse around the keyboard, etc... This is probably one of the poster child for why software patents should not be permitted.

Somehow I guess the IT geeks that write the patents forget that they got their ideas as 5 year olds watching the Jetsons and seeingthem buy stuff on a 200inch plasma screen using voice recognition to the virtual shopping channel.

A TV show can be prior art as it showcases the concept and idea perfectly so that even a 5 year old can understand it let alone a CEO earning $6m dollars.

Please RTFP. One-click isn't just "buy stuff with one click", and I'm tired of hearing people rail on it without at least understanding what it is.The patent's claims are specifically for storing payment and shipping information so that a one-click transaction can be done. It's a narrow scope, and I don't think anyone has shown prior art for the limited situations it applies to. So IMO Amazon did invent *something*.

What I think needs to be questioned is if that specific, limited scope is significant and

I know that the patent has a narrow scope, that's exactly why I proposed a browser-based game as prior art:1. its under control of a client2. provides information about the item (you can see what you want to buy including a descriptive name)3. only one action, that's the 1-click, by simply clicking on that item (also known in many many newer games like Command&Conquer where you buy&build by one click on a item)4. organising further informations about the user -> that's keeping track of you curren

Yes, a work of fiction has described a technological innovation. However, fiction is not considered relevant for prior art. Among other things, it does not describe something in sufficient detail to educate the reader how it works. Try getting a Star Trek transporter to work. Second, it's fiction, so it's not "credible." However, as we see from flip phones, it does inspire engineers.

There was a company (And still is) that had a patent on using the "*" and "#" key on your phone, but, only when calling Directory Assistance. Called "Metro One" (NASDAQ:INFO if they aren't delisted).Now, if Obvious was somehow forgotten in the world of telephony, I don't know what is in the rest of the world. But they had the patent based on "business process". How is using the * key different for a person calling 411 vs calling the local Energy company, or their own PBX? I don't know.

I don't know if you were going for funny, but as you got insightful... it might seem logical, but it is not how the patent system works. An idea in on field that is well know can be patented when applied to another field. For
instance, if there was some well known technique used in tape drives and you thought of a way to use it in disc drives, you could patent that.

I don't like it one bit but this rejection will be overturned. The judges look at the record as a whole to determine if the examiner made a prima facie (on the face) case for obviousness. He does quite a bit of saying "it's obvious" with no reasons. The appeals board will have no choice but to tell the examiner to try again with a different strategy.

Well before the dawn of the Internet people had accounts set up with suppliers and all the needed to do was phone them up (ie: connect to the website), ask them if they had the product (ie: search) and then say: "I'll take it". The supplier would know where to ship it and where to get the money from.

If that isn't so close to one click shopping it would invalidate the patent, then I don't know what is...

The reason that doesn't apply is in your first sentence. It doesn't use the internet, which is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for anything to be novel and patentable. Didn't you get the memo?

In much the same way that script kiddies and east european phishers all know how to hack PCs. All of corporate America knows how to hack congress.

Most hacks require only simple tools: PACs, straight contibutions, that important meeting with the lobbyist that needed to be in the lobby of a Hawian hotel.

Some hacks require more subtle tools: "Where was I gonna site that factory - remind me?", "You know if you ever get tired of congress and want a real job.", "I have absolutly no control over the editors of my newspaper/TV station if they print bad things about you thats tough."

It happens so regularly it doesnt even raise eyebrows anymore. So Bezos will probably lose his patents until congress changes the law so he can get them back.

Wouldnt it be much more efficient and simpler to introduce a "pay per vote" system. Represenitives could auction of votes on e-bay, and, the house seat themselves could be auctioned by the higest bidder. (This is a varation on tax farming which served to Ottoman empire well for 600 years).

The sad thing is that while all this malarky is going on Wolfowitz and Bolten are lecturing the rest of the world about the evils of corruption.

Wouldnt it be much more efficient and simpler to introduce a "pay per vote" system. Represenitives could auction of votes on e-bay, and, the house seat themselves could be auctioned by the higest bidder. (This is a varation on tax farming which served to Ottoman empire well for 600 years).

There's an actual serious reason not to, stemming from political choice theory. When you make "political rents" (i.e. ability to extract easy personal cash as a result of political power) too obvious and direct, that incr

Corporations have never determined the direction of the patent system. Corporations are legally and ethically bound to pursue business practices that are in the interests of shareholders. When the software patent genie was let out of the bottle in the 1980s, software companies had absolutely no option except to pursue their own patents vigorously.

Amazon has never done the wrong thing by pursuing the "one-click" patent. Patents, especially software patents, are interpreted very narrowly. What sounds to a layman as a "patent on online sales" (for example) turns out to be much more specific in print, and more importantly has been interpreted very narrowly by Federal courts. You can't patent the process of online sales, but you can patent a detail of it. When a court sets out to determine the validity of such a detail, it doesn't examine it in the context of "is it a logical implementation of a larger, obvious system." The court sets out to determine whether it is a detail that someone else has used. Basically, as the law has been interpreted for the past two decades, whether something has already been patented is the greatest determining factor on whether it can be patented. That isn't how a layperson reads the law, and in fact it is probably contrary to the intent of the law. But that's how it is.

The US Supreme Court has indicated an interest in changing the interpretation of software and process patents so that courts must interpret patents and patent applications in a way that sounds more in the spirit of the law. I don't think most conventional companies oppose this, because the expense and uncertainty involved in patent applications, cross-licensing, and God forbid, litigation, is considerable. Patent holding firms are probably distressed about it, but I think most people perceive patent holding companies as an aberration.

The fact that Amazon has its "one-click" patent means that Amazon was doing the right thing as far as the system is concerned. It also means that the system is counterintuitive and, a majority of people probably think, out of whack with the original intent of US patent law.

Just because something is legal and possible does NOT make it 'right'. If it was found that it was legal to kill people by some method, does that make it right for everyone to kill everyone they can by that method? Too extreme? How about a corporation that takes advantage of the tax system to pay as almost no taxes, so that everyone else has to pay their share? How about police that run reds lights in their cars because it's legal for them to, even when they don't have the need? How about a teacher that hands out religious pamphlets right outside the school grounds? How about someone standing outside a playground and screaming at the children?

I bet I just hit on the sensibilities of most of the people that read this. There's plenty of examples of things that are totally legal, but not 'right' in any way.

Amazon may be within their rights to attempt to patent this, but that does not mean they are 'doing the right thing' in any way shape or form. Amazon should be considering their customers in this. If it angers your customers, it's probably not a good idea. Since any global online retailer's goal is to have the whole world as customers, they should be thinking about everyone.

Get YOUR head out of your ass.Imagine.. if you will.. you are in charge of taking the LARGEST e-tailer on line, and maintaining its profitability.Your guys came up with this neat one-click idea. Now.. imagine you DON'T try to protect this asset, and invest hundreds of millions in advertising to promote your new.. speedier service. Three months later, your competition do exactly the same thing, and your investors are looking to replace you.

Nice try, but you seem to be confused. There's quite a bit wrong with your post. Let's start with these:I never said what 'biotech companies' do is 'right' either. Are you that brainwashed that YOU think it's okay?

Why would a company invest millions of advertising dollars in an obvious idea that can be copied in a week?

Your last line seems to suggest that if I don't work at the patent office, I have no business talking about the patent system. Just because you have NO idea about anything but the job you

How about refunding license payments if this falls through? That'd be cool. Say, you've filed a patent and started charging people licensing fees based on the patent that's not yet granted. The patent is rejected. Shouldn't you refund the licensing fees? Can we do this for all patents, so that there's penalty for filing shitty, obvious patents, or patents where prior art exists?

> it's also unclear how Amazon plans to make even one thin dime from this patent.

Software patents are damaging because they hamper competition. Using the monopoly granted by the patent office, Amazon can forbid other retailers to implement a one-click-buy system, thereby denying the public of the usefulness of cookies (regardless of how good we think keeping all of a client's info in the server is).

Err, no it shouldn't. Saying "A is braver than B" is perfectly grammatical. "A is braver than B is" is reduntant, and generally frowned upon. Following "than" in the former case should be an indirect pronoun, in this case "me".